Recent posts by issendorf on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

hmm…i’d rather say homophobes are branded as homophobes; racists as racists; bigots as bigots; and bible thumping religious fanatics as bible thumping religious fanatics. how many of those are Liberals?

The second and third are certainly fair descriptors of some elements of the fringe right, but there are a slew of racist liberals. As soon as a conservative Hispanic, Asian, or African American emerges, the racist slurs come fast and furious. Herman Cain was called an Oreo and black conservatives are routinely called Uncle Toms. As I mentioned earlier, Ted Cruz is apparently not a real Latino. I could go on and on, but that would be redundant.

but conservatives tend to be louder, not liberals. i can’t count how often i’ve seen “don’t like it, get out” and shit like that.

Maybe because you aren’t a conservative and don’t encounter liberal vitriol on a regular basis, but the hate is pretty equal on both sides. When you try to claim the left does it less often or isn’t as nasty is when you lose credibility with your argument.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

issne, YOU are leaning well into the pitch on this.
And tacitly inferring that there are only two reasons for Omega’s position.
That he is either an outright liar or he fails to understand a concept THE WAY YOU DO.
Either is little more than the same kind of name-calling that YOU are vilifying.

It’s not understanding a concept the way I do, it’s being factually wrong with what he said. When someone is factually wrong, it’s because they are lying or because they are uninformed. I don’t know which Omega is, so I included both. This isn’t like discussing a political theory or speculating what the political fallout of, say, the IRS scandal. What he said is factually wrong and there are only two options why he is factually wrong.

I get it that YOU are “conservative”.
However, do YOU hate niggers?
Do YOU hate Gays?
Do YOU use the Bible to defend such BIGOTED views?

I hate affirmative action, I don’t approve of the job Obama and Holder are doing, I hate the notion of federalized marriage and I’m perfectly fine with people who don’t support same-sex marriage on a religious basis. Those views would have be defined as a racist, a homophobe, and a bible thumper even though that is so far from the truth.

The fact of the matter is, especially the racial component, is that the left is far more concerned with race than the right is. Liberals love to talk about dog-whistle politics and how the criticism of anyone who is black automatically has a racist component to it. When Clarence Thomas was skewered by Dems during his nomination hearings, were the Dems accused of racism (that’s not rhetorical – I wasn’t alive)? I’m guessing not. Likewise, did the NAACP come to the aid of Justice Thomas and decry those Democrats as racist for targeting him? Nope. Recently Bill Richardson tried to claim that Ted Cruz isn’t a real Hispanic, and then fell over himself trying to walk it back. So stop with the assertion that liberals are above race and its only those nasty conservatives who are doing it. If anything, the left are even worse than the right.

Tell me issen, does the shoe fit?
Do YOU align yourself w/ the thinking of those pundits-of-foul-profundity?
NO…of course not EVERY word out of their mouth is of obvious bigoted nature.
But, their assessment of most anything & anyone they disagree w/ is delievered in the most, high-pitched haranging narative posible & not be sued for lible & slander.

Here’s where you’re wrong: you’re making the argument that only the real far-right fringe are being targeted with the slurs from the left; that only the most ideological and extreme conservatives fit the bill of being racist, etc. However, mainstream media personalities have taken it beyond that to arguing the Republican Party as a whole, Senators and House Members, and average everyday Republicans and conservatives are also racists, homophobes, misogynistic assholes.

And, of course there is always going to be a few liberal “extremists” willing to go toe-2-toe w/ these idiots trolls. After all, trolls luv a good “dance” w/ each other. But, it really isn’t all that hard to see that one side of trolls heavily outnumbers the other.

Nice metaphor for you and jhco and the SD forums as a whole having a composition that is overwhelmingly liberal.

That is if one actually does _pay attention to American politicos & pundits ON BOTH SIDES.

Seeing as you’re trying as hard as you can to defend the liberal media, I’ve guessing you don’t pay much attention to politicos and pundits on both sides.

Yeah, that fucking asshole, John Locke
His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.

If you have an actual complaint about Locke, don’t make it quite so cryptic in the future.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apathy concerning the current string of scandals?

I don´t think anyone outside of the anti-obama camp really sees any gross incompetence by the executive branch or a cover-up for political gain concerning Benghazi.

In the beginning, yes because both sides attempted to politicize the hell out of the issue. That essentially made it so you were anti-Obama if you looked into it and if you brushed it off you were pro-Obama. In recent months, especially after the testimony of Hicks and co. more and more moderate and left-leaning journalists are taking a second look at Benghazi.

The Death off Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Smith seem more like bad construction planning/work and bad-luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Assault_on_the_Consulate

It seems that the amount of security personal was less of an issue, than that the safe-hafen was not built to keep smoke outside for an at least reasonable amount of time.
And that some off the personal could die when the attackers equipment includes not only grenades, automatic weapons and RPGs but even truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns, should not be that surprising.
For a planned attack with that equipment 4 causalities (2 indirectly by smoke) is actually surprisingly low.

Interesting – I hadn’t heard much of this factor and I’m sure it mattered. However, there are a slew of things the Executive branch could have done better (and I’d be glad to spell them out if you need me to).

The cover up claim is really bewildering to me. But perhaps you can explain to me what the Obama administration had to gain from labeling the attack being done from within a spontaneous demonstration vs. a preplanned terrorist attack without spontaneous demonstrations.
To me it seems that there is absolutely no political gain whatsoever.

Obama liked to say, “Osama is dead and GM is alive and Al Qaida is decimated!!!!!!!!!!!” This was especially true during the Democratic National Convention which happened about a week before Benghazi. Essentially if this was a terrorist attack, his claims during the convention that were televised nationally were premature and his foreign policy would come into question two months before the election. By falsely claiming it was a YouTube video for about two weeks (even though he knew damn well it had nothing to with the video), his administration and his foreign policy wouldn’t be called into question – the blame could be shifted to someone outside of the campaign, thus neutering any counter attack by Romney.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Educated or Informed?

all of that is basically the exact opposite of reality.

Liberals don’t brand conservatives homophobic, neanderthals, racists, bigots, and bible thumping religious fanatics? Either you just want to lie or you never pay attention to liberal American politicos and pundits.

how is that a good thing?
and, seriously? that doesn’t even make any sense! why on earth are people insistently trying to redefine our rights, and have completely different rights in different places in the world if they “came from God”? it’s…a completely meaningless sentence.

1) Someone needs to read some John Locke – he’ll let you know why it’s a good thing. And if you have read John Locke, then you should reread his stuff.

2) Came from God probably isn’t the best way to say it since it invokes a religious aspect that is wholly irrelevant. Natural rights would be a better way to describe them.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apathy concerning the current string of scandals?

There were tons of embassy attacks under Bush where 13 Americans died, did their lives mean anything?

Those embassy attacks didn’t involve at best gross incompetence by the executive branch and at worst a coverup for political gain.

Not to mention the fact that house Republicans voted to cut embassy security in 2011, nobody seems to mention that.

Democrats did for awhile, until testimony and facts showed that this was factually wrong.

As for the IRS and AP scandals however, i do believe those are actual problems that should be looked into, but the politicization of Benghazi is a joke.

I’m not directing the ensuing mini-rant against you Ninja; just towards The President, his administration, and Obama apologists everywhere:

The President and the Democrats lost the ability to complain about the GOP politicizing Benghazi (which, they are) right around the time the President took families from Sandy Hook with him on Air Force One and had them stand behind him as he pushed for gun control legislation. If you’re going to complain about the other side doing something faulty, you had better not be doing the same damn thing. Politicians politicize and both sides do it – complaining that a tragedy was politicized is an invalid argument for the most part.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Both of which I’d say is bullshit. Getting crushed to death by a haphazard vehicle is a real physical danger. Seeing someone drinking or gosh forbid something shocking isn’t.

I absolutely agree that it’s bullshit. I was just saying that there is precedent for the government to regulate private property on public land.

Try to imagine it all scary sounding.

Ha ha, will do.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

I doubt NASA, World Meteorological Organization, IPCC, Nature, ONU, American Meteorological Society, IPCC, NOAA, GISS, Environmental Protection Agency, UNEP, IEA, NationalGeographic, American Society of Agronomy, UNFCCC, and 99% percent of articles are complete bogus. They could be wrong, as Newton was. But it’s not an amateur layman who is going to prove it wrong – most scientists believe it for a reason.

Large groups of scientists who have come to agreement on issues have pretty consistently been wrong throughout history. Here is an article that charts some of the more recent instances of a large collection of scientists being flat out wrong. I’ll also continue to point to the global cooling scientists and the Mann’s Hockey stick scientists hyping an apocalyptic scenario that was complete bullshit.

Hopefully we are interpreting it wrong, otherwise we’ve got a big challenge ahead of us.

Some of NASA’s models have already been shown to be wrong. In addition, we can’t accurately predict weather past 7-10 days, yet you’re going to have me believe they can get an accurate read on temperature 40-50 years down the line? I’m hesitant to put much stock into those models.

What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional “forcing” is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth’s history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.

As we say in the world of sabermetrics: sample size. That is, small sample size. 150 years of data in relation to billions of years of history is a drop in the ocean – a small enough range to be an anomaly.

Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.

As Vika said earlier, there really hasn’t been global warmth.

But if you have a better possible cause then “the temperature has changed before” please tell me.

Pretty much that’s the answer – the atmosphere and weather change constantly and the fact that Kyoto, one of the most stringent carbon cutting programs, would have done jackshit to reduce temperature globally leads me to believe that any wonderful carbon reduction program will do little to nothing.

If CO2 is as important a driver of climate change as you say, then climate change would have begun to take effect in the 1950s after WWII when industrialization took off. But, it didn’t. Nothing really began to happen until the 1990s (after, again, we were told to beware the coming ice age). There are just so many holes in the theory and if you want global governments to spend trillions of dollars in this black hole, the least you can do is craft a sound theory that doesn’t consistently have holes poked in it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nepotism In Western Media

Originally posted by Draconavin:

The weak mind strikes again!

That’s an adorable defense mechanism – someone disagrees with the almighty me! They must not be as smart as me! They must be incapable of ever changing their opinion!

Strolling down from Mt. Douchebag may work for you some of the time, but not when you’re talking about the American media system with me. This is something I’ve studied – something I have a degree in – two things I would wager you haven’t done. Please do show me where I’m wrong and how a 22 minute newscast can cover every news story in the world. That was the argument I made and I’m apparently a zeitgeist and a weak mind for pointing out it isn’t possible (I was also a weak mind and a zeitgeist for saying repealing the 2nd Amendment isn’t possible – I’m sensing a pattern here…).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nepotism In Western Media

Ever try, not being a slave to your zeitgeist of the day? Oh; Right; I forgot; Too hard…

Every try realizing that everything you want isn’t feasible? Oh; Right; I forgot; Too hard…

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nepotism In Western Media

Lol. Bigger news. Yah, because fluff is really news, right? And pointless preludes to shootings that happen on a daily basis while the ignorant masses twiddle their fingers is really, all that more important than world affairs… yah right.

So you’re pissed the American media covers shootings that happen every day instead of covering bombings that happen every day? Or because they aren’t prioritizing news the same way you think it should be prioritized?

Actually, there is.

A network newscast is 22 minutes. Once you cover domestic and political news and major global events (I’m sorry, a bombing in Syria/Iraq/Iran/insert Middle Eastern nation isn’t news), you really don’t have much time left. Cable news channels don’t have the excuse, but then again, they aren’t producing news so arguing they aren’t maintaining journalistic standards is a bit silly.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

Care to give the other cause?

Climates have changed since the birth of the atmosphere. Climates would change if we burned 100x more carbon. Climates would change if we burned 100x less carbon. Climates would change if we maintain the status quo.

You point out rising carbon and climates changing. Those are two independent variables. If you’re going to claim causation, then you need the climate change to be dependent on the carbon. As it is, there is no knowledge how much, if any, current carbon levels are affecting climates and whether or not its a positive or not (there are some who see a coming ice age and think that the increase in carbon are completely necessary to maintain our way of life).

Oh and apperently we are now over 400 ppm http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/12/1993531/climate-sensitivity-stunner-last-time-co2-levels-hit-400-parts-per-million-the-arctic-was-14f-warmer/?mobile=nc

That moment someone links to think progress for scientific data. I guess that means I can quote junk science for you since you have fairly low standards for what sources you’re willing to put in play?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

I never claimed anything was a fact nor unquestionable truth.

Maybe not overtly, but things like, “I just don’t get why people keep doubting the scientific consensus without knowing jack-shit about the subject, nor have a very good reason to do so.” and “Seriously, the amount of evidence that people should at least reconsider their positions. It’s overwhelming.” and “Look ONLY at the facts, and see what truth the facts bear out.” illustrate you don’t have much tolerance for dissenting views.

I never claimed our current science could never be proven wrong – in fact, it was quite the opposite. If you want to doubt it, please come up with some ground-breaking research, or at least study the field in depth. Otherwise, follow the scientific consensus.

Literally this is the same thing followers of Mann’s hockey stick were saying. And you know what: it was complete bullshit.

Literally this is the same thing followers of the notion in the 70s that there was going to be massive global cooling and the earth was going to turn into an ice cube. And you know what: it was complete bullshit.

Now, global scientists tell me when it’s warmer, that’s a sign of global climate change. They also tell me that when it’s colder, that’s a sign of global climate change. I’m guessing if temperatures remain exactly the same, they will tell me that’s also a sign of global climate change.

I also like how it’s shifted to global climate change when it became common knowledge that global warming was bullshit so they had to adapt the title to maintain the charade.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Issen, I was sincerely reflecting a little bit on the car comparison. Why do we require permits? I mean, how did that start? What were the stated aims? Why is an individuals use of his property in the public sphere hinged upon the approval of federal authority? Are we okay with that, why? Where is the line drawn from there?

I don’t know the answer, but my educated guess is that the powers that be saw that for the sake of public safety, if you’re going to operate a machine as large as an automobile on public infrastructure, then the government wants to make sure you are capable. Governments spend billions of dollars annually on roads – it makes sense, to me, that the government should have some regulation on that.

And it isn’t just cars that are a limit on public property. You aren’t allowed to carry open alcohol on sidewalks/public streets. You aren’t allowed to have obscene material in public is another. ‘Public safety’ is the rationale they use, and as you say:

Now because vehicles are incredibly powerful, and relatively difficult, I am okay with us licensing. But, rational as I ultimately conclude it is, it does make me cringe a bit. Ultimately we are sacrificing property freedoms of the public, within the public sphere, for public safety – accident prevention, assumption of risk.

I also cringe. But yes, sacrificing freedoms is becoming more and more a part of our day to day lives. A related story is this: two years ago when I was in Vegas, I saw Penn and Teller. Penn is a fairly outspoken civil libertarian. In the gift shop, they sold these metallic printings of the Bill of Rights. During the show, Penn told us to buy them and have them in our pockets when we went to the airport. When the metal detector went off, we were supposed to loudly proclaim, “I hand over my civil rights so I can board a plane.” That’s, unfortunantly, more and more what is happening today, and as each new sacrifice of rights becomes normalized, the government uses that as a baseline for future expansion.

On a related note, you actually don’t need a license to drive on private property (at least that’s what I was told and why my dad let me drive his truck around his property when I was 12). And on semantic level, drivers licenses are federal – just state issued. I’m nitpicky, I know : /

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

And I would suggest the rights of the majority does not automatically trump that of the minority. I am fine with obscenity, fictitious child pornography, libel, slander, perjury (which, is well, a joke), as listed by Issen. Incitement is a pretty fine line between Attempting and Conspiring, I’m willing to let that one go. Time and Place I see as non issues short of intrusion upon private property, which is really more a question of Volume as Presence.

I may have come off as being more tolerant of speech limitations as I actually am – all I’m saying is there is precedent for Congress to limit a Constitutional right.

I’m basically in complete agreement with this paragraph – I like my speech limitations to be narrow and tightly defined. Broad, vague limits are no good and in recent decades have been struck down by the Supremes. So too do I want any limits on the 2nd Amendment to be narrow and tightly defined as I think any limit on a Constitutional right should be. For instance, with the comparison between guns and cars, I think it has merit in that creating limits on guns should require far more scrutiny than a limit on driving.

Edited for clarity and elimination of a typo or two.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I’m not convinced they’ve proven the right to impose limits on freedom of speech, they’ve certainly shown they have the means though.

They have. Fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, libel, slander, perjury, incitement, time, place and manner restrictions on when and where you speak, etc. are all limits/prohibitions on types of speech, many of which have been upheld by the Supremes.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I’m not at all sure what it is that issen was going for with that. Maybe he was trying to show the futility of passing laws in effort to prevent the harm present in everyday life……EVEN IF said harms are of the more extremist variety such as the obvious difficulty & rarity of “drowning in a PUDDLE”.

You basically got the gist of it. You can’t legislate accidents. They will always happen – we’re human after all. Even if we pass the mandatory gun training lesson that softest recommended (which we should), these sorts of events will continue to happen. We force every driver to pass a safety test in order to drive, yet there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of piss-poor drivers who cause accidents daily. Would the mandatory training of firearms reduce these incidents? Probably, but they’re already pretty rare, at least compared to other accidents – the cliche example being kids are far more likely to drown than to shoot themselves. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can to improve things. I just don’t want that one accident to be a source of new laws when it was just that: an accident.

I think issendorf’s paragraph there aligns with the large-percentage-bloc of moderate opinion on this issue. I don’t think their opinion is MOSTLY DRIVEN by emotions. Sure, the INITIAL emotions are understadable & should be evoked BY such tragities. Such emotions are good cause to GET ONES ATTENTION….ONLY just that. From that point on, emotions SHOULD NOT BE USED as the driving incentive to procede. Doing so can (usually?) end up actually doing MORE HARM than good.

You aligned me with the moderates and not the fringe right for once! I’m… I’m… I’m so happy!

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Oh look everybody, it’s the “WELP there’s no magical way to fix EVERYTHING so might as well not bother trying!” guy!
He likes to show up every time anyone suggests any sort of improvement for the common good.

Dude, issendorf…I’m pretty sure you don’t think that there’s not lots of room for improvement.
I assume you’re just looking for “realistic” options.

Not really. I’m just saying that repealing the 2nd Amendment as your policy solution isn’t really practical. In Draco’s defense, it probably would drastically reduce gun violence. But, it’s really, really difficult to pass a Constitutional Amendment when people agree on the issue. Repealing the 2nd Amendment has as much of a shot as an abortions rights/pro life rights Amendment.

How about mandatory training and licensing for all firearms purchasers?

You prove you’re not a fucking moron, and you can handle and own a weapon responsibly, and hey! You get to own a gun!

Absolutely – same as the universal background checks. I was disappointed they didn’t pass to be honest because background checks are the bare minimum the government can do. I also stand by my argument that gun control advocates would be well served trying to implement a buyback program of some type – that’s something that people like me who are fairly neutral on the issue could support I imagine.

Obviously, people like jhco, who think any ignorant asshole should be allowed to endanger himself and his family BECAUSE FREEDOM, aren’t going to agree.
But in my mind, that’s likely the same kind of dumbfuck that let’s his kids get their hands on a loaded firearm while he’s not looking.

Jhco fails to realize that just as the government has shown to have the right to impose limits on speech, so too do they have the right to impose limits on firearms.

I come at this from the standpoint of where I don’t oppose the government implementing new laws if they’re actually going to accomplish something. What I don’t want is for something tragic to happen, then having the government just create a law that won’t really do anything (adding more bureaucracy : [ ) and then patting themselves on the back for passing a law that, again, does nothing to address the problem. I wouldn’t even be especially opposed to an assault weapons ban – gun control advocates just have done a really poor job articulating an argument why I should support the new legislation.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

It’s a realistic argument.

It’s realistic that 38 states would agree to a handgun ban?

The answer is facing you right in the face, yet you chose to ignore what you know would be good. Why? Maybe the family and friends you surround yourself are a little bit on the extremist side?

I actually find the gun issue fairly uninteresting. In addition, far, far more of my friends are liberal than are conservative. My lurking here is more or less to correct the gun control advocates when they’re factually wrong or pushing a fallacy.

I’m not even saying I don’t agree with it or that it wouldn’t work. I’m saying it will never be implemented and you aren’t exactly making a compelling argument saying that it could happen. You’re just spinning into personal attacks against me which is always an argumentative winner.

Constitutionalists are a bit on the extreme. The only worthwhile aspect of your constitution is the first amendment, everything else is fluff.

Yeah, I’m really not a Constitutionalist and that’s bloody obvious to anyone who spends two minutes reading what I write. Maybe you mistook me for jhco?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

So yah, keep beating that ignorant drum because it seems to me that the empirical proof of what Australia has done, at least, is more than sufficient to the banning of guns from public possession, and only allowing people to have access to guns at shooting ranges, or public hunting grounds where the guns are rented, and officers will relieve you of your weapon when you are done having your “fun”. Not perfect but it’s a better compromise than what we are compromising with now… Unless, you couldn’t care who is getting killed in the streets, as long as it doesn’t hurt friends and family, but you can’t live in that bubble for long,

What ignorant bubble is that? Oh, right, the bubble of reality. Show me a realistic scenario where the 2nd Amendment is repealed – because that’s what it would take to implement your policy ‘solution’. It will never happen. If you want to reside in the realm of theory, fine. I want a consumption tax rather than a progressive income tax. But I don’t propose that as a realistic policy because it will never happen, just as outlawing guns in the home will never happen.

The secret to Australia’s success was a massive gun buyback program. That’s something that I would support because with the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country, a buyback is the only serious way to begin to curb the number of firearms in private hands. That’s an actual policy solution where a realistic argument could be made for its potential passage.

Whether or not it should be implemented is a different argument and one I don’t find interesting at all. I’m interested in actual (realistic) policy that can reduce gun crimes (and the article that softest linked isn’t even a crime – it’s an accident).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Have people give a shit about adequate storage of firearms?

And what law is going to force people to give a shit about adequate storage of firearms?

How-How does that happen?

Seems rather mystifying to me also, yet it happens. After it happened, there wasn’t a mass push to pass legislation denying children the ability to play near puddles.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by Draconavin:

Every think of not allowing him have access to a gun in the first place. Like the rest of the rational world. Like, I dunno, Australia, perhaps?
Whats with this emotional appeal to the second amendment. Ever gonna grow up? We could do away with the second amendment, and nothing would change. We could still allow people to have access to guns, and enjoy them, but allowing the rule of law—order—to keep the citizens safe.

So he shouldn’t have access to the gun, but you are fine with allowing people to have… access to the gun?

It’s a kid getting hold of a handgun in a house. You can’t legislate around accidents. You can make whatever laws you want about responsible driving. Car accidents are always going to happen. People are always going to accidentally stab themselves with knives. Kids are always going to drown in puddles. This notion that the left has that anytime an accident occurs that we need our precious government to institute a slew of laws (none of which would prevent the aforementioned accident) is completely and utterly asinine.

Again, I ask for you or softest to show me a gun control law that would prevent this. Arguing that we should just repeal the 2nd Amendment is laughable. Not because I’m a rabid gun owner nor because I’m a strict Constitutionalist. It’s laughable because it will never happen. Operate in reality the next time you want to try to propose something.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by softest_voice:

Yup.
Nothing has been working well so far.
Why change anything?
God knows we wouldn’t want to sacrifice the sensibilities of the “true patriots” out there.
LOL

Please share the magic law that would have stopped this from occurring.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Ah well, Kids are going to be kids, what are you going to do?

Nothing.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are people hating on Koreans

Originally posted by beauval:

Americans are especially stupid though.

Even the ones from Wisconsin?

Exceptions to every rule!

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are people hating on Koreans

Just to be clear about this, it’s not that I see Americans as being especially stupid or even deliberately ignorant.

Americans are especially stupid though.

When it comes to anything outside their own back yard, most Americans I’ve come across just don’t seem to care.

Pretty much this. Hell, Americans don’t really care that much about what happens within its borders, let alone what happens across an ocean.